Scientist told us that the earth was the centre of the universe, that bleeding would cure baldness, that asbestos is safe, smoking calms the nerves and that human produced CO2 will make the sea rise 7 meters ... or was it 9 meters?

And science then continued to research and then showed us that these initial hypotheses were incorrect. (some of these are dubious scientific 'tellings' but let's not go there)

Science moves forward as new evidence is discovered through research, it has always been so. To ignore current accepted science backed by a long trail of discovery, measurement and evidence is foolish.

The best thing you can do Marc, is to motivate your skeptic congregation to collect evidence and publish it. No amount of political talk is going to change climate science. It takes evidence to do that, and the current state of the evidence confirms our impact on the climate.

Scientist told us that the earth was the centre of the universe, that bleeding would cure baldness, that asbestos is safe, smoking calms the nerves...

No Mark, "scientists" did not tell us these things and there are/were no scientific theories in peer reviewed science journals to support these claims either. These claims were made by pseudo scientists, charlatans and shonksters, some of whom have lived long enough to prothlesize your current cause that the current global warming is not related to a rise in CO2 in the atmosphere.

No Mark, "scientists" did not tell us these things and there are/were no scientific theories in peer reviewed science journals to support these claims either. These claims were made by pseudo scientists, charlatans and shonksters, some of whom have lived long enough to prothlesize your current cause that the current global warming is not related to a rise in CO2 in the atmosphere.

Ha ha, I take your assertion that geocentrism did not come from scientist and was not peer reviewed as a little joke. It was the consensus and the base of 1500 years of astronomical charts and reviewed and passed by scientist and religious authorities of the time over and over. Tons of books written about it.
As for the other blunders with asbestos and tobacco and pesticides and food additives and industrial contamination, (the real one not the make believe one) they all have one thing in common, the backing of "science" that in turn is backed by money from one source or another.

The idea that "your" side of the story is true because "scientist A" says so, (A is paid handsomely with millions in grants by a government ) yet my side is wrong because "scientist B says so" (B is [allegedly] being paid by an oil company), is a very naive view of things and has been addressed repeatedly.

Marc.In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell

As for the other blunders with asbestos and tobacco and pesticides and food additives and industrial contamination, (the real one not the make believe one) they all have one thing in common, the backing of "science" that in turn is backed by money from one source or another.

No Marc, they never had the backing of science.

Originally Posted by Marc

The idea that "your" side of the story is true because "scientist A" says so, (A is paid handsomely with millions in grants by a government ) yet my side is wrong because "scientist B says so" (B is [allegedly] being paid by an oil company), is a very naive view of things and has been addressed repeatedly.

Science doesn't have "sides", it is evidence based. There is only one set of evidence. What you repeated describe as "science" is not science, but bogus science, pseudo science or plain outright deception for whatever reason only the perpetrator will ever know.

The idea that "your" side of the story is true because "scientist A" says so, (A is paid handsomely with millions in grants by a government ) yet my side is wrong because "scientist B says so" (B is [allegedly] being paid by an oil company), is a very naive view of things and has been addressed repeatedly.

Not how it works, Marc. You have a conspiracy theory view of how science works. It is true that the church used to control science, but don't you remember that Galileo stepped over the line and the church was never able to put the genie back in it's bottle? Same with funding. You cannot buy fake evidence but you can have your own opinion even if the evidence does not support it.

If 'side' A wants to show something, they show evidence. If 'side' B wants to prove 'side' A wrong, they have to show evidence. Same story for both 'sides'. Your little problem is that the 'side' you have chosen is lacking evidence and support of scientists because 'side' A's work is almost universally accepted and there is a paucity of intelligible evidence from 'side' B.

Because 'side' B has industry funding and pushes the industry line, it does not follow that government funded science pushes the government line. Most governments would prefer they did not have this problem, so where is their motivation for pushing climate science to find AGW/ACC? There is none. Your thesis is a logical fallacy. eg. Just because you kick your cat, does not mean everybody kicks their cat.

....Because 'side' B has industry funding and pushes the industry line, it does not follow that government funded science pushes the government line. Most governments would prefer they did not have this problem, so where is their motivation for pushing climate science to find AGW/ACC? There is none. Your thesis is a logical fallacy....

You must be kidding ... I understand that you badly wish this little logic of yours to be true but hey...it isn't, sorry.

Just to address one small point of yours, you really think that "governments" see this as a "problem"? It is not a problem needing solution, it is a windfall just like wars and famine and pestilence are a windfall for governments who get to do things they would not normally get away with, gather support and look good. Every "problem" real or imaginary is a tool for any government regardless of persuasion. "Problems" need special funding, the more money the more power. Crisis are what makes totalitarians, the so called non existent global warming rebaptised whatever you like, is no different.

As far as your trotted lack of evidence for skepticism, I am rather tired of that, since evidence has been posted on this thread ad nauseam. The fact that you are a late arriver and still waving your arms around when most have left does not make it less so. You got late to the ball and all the good girls have gone. Sorry again!
Best luck next time.

Marc.In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell

You must be kidding ... I understand that you badly wish this little logic of yours to be true but hey...it isn't, sorry.

Just to address one small point of yours, you really think that "governments" see this as a "problem"? It is not a problem needing solution, it is a windfall just like wars and famine and pestilence are a windfall for governments who get to do things they would not normally get away with, gather support and look good. Every "problem" real or imaginary is a tool for any government regardless of persuasion. "Problems" need special funding, the more money the more power. Crisis are what makes totalitarians, the so called non existent global warming rebaptised whatever you like, is no different.

Yet we have a right wing government who does not see it as a problem, and a departed left wing government who did see it as a problem. Throughout left and right wing governments in this country (and any country I can think of), the science has said the same thing with increasing conviction over time based on evidence. Thesis destroyed #2.

As far as your trotted lack of evidence for skepticism, I am rather tired of that, since evidence has been posted on this thread ad nauseam. The fact that you are a late arriver and still waving your arms around when most have left does not make it less so. You got late to the ball and all the good girls have gone. Sorry again!
Best luck next time.

If you cannot tell the difference between the type of fake 'evidence' you find on climate denier sites that you clearly frequent; and published, peer reviewed and accepted science, then you would be correct. Unfortunately what you are proposing is a conspiracy theory, and one that does not stand up. Quoting denier 'evidence' here does not in any way equal the quality of science and evidence required to dispel the vast bulk of scientific research and evidence already in place. A blog is not a scientific publishing medium, neither is a forum. Sorry to burst your conspiracy bubble.

Please pass on to your congregation: If you have evidence and a superior hypothesis, publish! And soon.

Just like in previous observation I made, the replies seems to refer to a different post.
It is a basic requirement in a written forum, to read ... (stating the obvious) ... and reply to all or most points made possibly in context.

Of course in a verbal debate, there is more of an histrionic context and support can be drummed up by appealing to the crowd with half truth and addressing points from a totally unrelated angle, crack jokes, pretend and other distractions.
Yet in the written context, this does not work. May be a distraction but means absolutely nothing.
Your replay is a vacuum of meaning and has no relation to what I said nor in the context I said it.

Companies, even more big companies, act like politicians, always have and always will. I said so.... your point is? no point! zero.

Scientist stop seeking truth when they are paid to do so, always have and always will.
Scientist told us that the earth was the centre of the universe, that bleeding would cure baldness, that asbestos is safe, smoking calms the nerves and that human produced CO2 will make the sea rise 7 meters ... or was it 9 meters?

Belief in a cause, any cause, follows a pattern of thoughts that is not the accepted norm of searching, finding, researching and accepting and perhaps then believing. It is more like believing first then search for a fitting cause to feed the preconceived belief.
That is why most of the time "debating" is useless since the rusted on believers are unmovable for one and one reason only. Thier mind can not accept to be wrong because that would make their preconceived value that is part of their character wrong and the subsequent domino effect unbearable.

Uncorrupted scientific process is different. There is always scope for doubt and skepticism is welcomed as part of the process of finding the explanation to a problem. Note I did not say truth since that term is absolute and relates better to religion than science. What is the truth today will be false tomorrow so may as well not call it "the truth" at all.

AGW fraudsters, supporters and assorted cheer leaders want the world to applaud and chant in chorus
"What do we want? Stop global warming! ... when do we want it? NOW !!!"...
in the best unionist street concentration fashion.
The paid mercenary scientist join them if the pay is OK.

Fortunately not all scientists are happy with the pay, others missed out and are pissed off about it, and other still may be have some ethics left and tell what they know to be fact.

Let's sit down and watch what will unfold next.
No amount of histrionism and charades will change fiction into facts, not even with lots of smoke.

Science doesn't have "sides", it is evidence based. There is only one set of evidence. What you repeated describe as "science" is not science, but bogus science, pseudo science or plain outright deception for whatever reason only the perpetrator will ever know.

Wow I am just getting a bit sick of this evidence crap.

It has been done to death in this forum and not one single conclusive bit of science has been put forward that proves beyond doubt co2 is the main driver of the temperature increases this century.

And I am not going to go over old ground now.

It is pious beyond belief to think what has been put forward as scientific evidence concludes the matter beyond question. Particularly when all the empirical evidence is pointing the other way.

Oh dear, do you really imagine that every other aspect of climate then was the same as now and CO2 is the only player?mmmmmm what data do you have that nobody else has, I wonder what the methane levels were back then when there was millions or billions of farting dinosaurs methane adding to the so called greenhouse effect of theses gases plus the thousands of parts per million CO2 which didn't send the the earth into a fiery end

A tiny change in CO2 is not the primary cause of global warming, it is the primary cause of excess global warming, over and above "natural" global warming, in the 150 years post industrialisation. The same Laws of Physics and Thermodynamics applied always as now. What a joke! If this was true why has there not been a rise in the average global temp over the last 16 or so years as predicted by the models & irrefutable laws of physics & thermodynamics which the models are based on.

Sorry, but past climate history does nothing to "dispelthe theory well & truly as CO2 being the major driver of AGW" when all of the other contributors to the planets energy balance are taken into account

well actually nearly all science is based on past history unless of course it's about climate science predictions, mmmmmmm that's right they are failing miserably!

It has been done to death in this forum and not one single conclusive bit of science has been put forward that proves beyond doubt co2 is the main driver of the temperature increases this century.

Well, perhaps none you support, yet you do agree on GHG effect and the role of CO2, yet you choose to ignore the supporting evidence. lol.

And I am not going to go over old ground now.

Simple. Don't read this thread. It continues to go over the same ground that you do not wish raised. You may be the thread starter, but you are not the thread censor.

It is pious beyond belief to think what has been put forward as scientific evidence concludes the matter beyond question. Particularly when all the empirical evidence is pointing the other way.

In this thread, multiple examples of published science have been referenced that support the AGW/ACC accepted science. In response, 'skeptics' have done little other than to throw rocks. If the skeptic position was strong, it would be published, replicated and repeated just as the current accepted science has been and continues to be.

What does it matter if the co2 increase is a forcing or a feedback? Maybe the previous sea level rises weren't catastrophic because there wasn't 7 billion people on the planet. Do the math, account for the level of warming in past events without a co2 feedback.

so somehow this so called feedback mysteriously disappeared when the CO2 levels were in the thousand's of parts per million & the earth didn't suffer from catastrophic warming which burnt the earth to a crisp, the earth deals with tides in the range of up to 15m on a regular basis & you know what, the human race is fairly cluey, they just move up the beach when is comes & that's on a daily basis, not over millienia.
so if I do the maths on an theory which is failing on its predictions & proven by history to be voided, will this mean anything besides SFA
regards inter

What is the best thing about El Nino for our fake skeptics? They get a new 'no warming since..' year. lol

more regurgitated fear campaign propaganda to try & link CO2 to global warming through anecdotal evidence, it's getting very old & very over used, I notice it didn't mention no water in our dams, as that one eventually went the way of the titanic.
regards inter

No doubt we will hear how the current heatwaves in Australia are “unprecedented” and evidence of dangerous man-made global warming.
They are neither “global” nor “unprecedented”.
In the great heatwave of 1896, with nearly 200 deaths, the temperature at Bourke did not fall below 45.6 degC for six weeks, and the maximum was 53.3 degC. Bushfires raged throughout NSW and 66 people perished in the heat.
In 1897, Perth had an 18 day heatwave with a record of 43.3 degC. Other heatwaves were reported at Winton, 1891, Melbourne 1892, Boulia 1901, Sydney 1903, Perth 1906 and so on.
Why don’t we hear of these severe heatwaves from the past? Simple – the government Bureau of Meteorology conveniently ignores all temperature records before 1910.
However, that does not excuse our media for neglecting the written records such as these preserved in newspapers of the past.
Could it be that both the BOM and some of the media are still trying to preserve the ailing global warming scare?

Marc.In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell

more regurgitated fear campaign propaganda to try & link CO2 to global warming through anecdotal evidence, it's getting very old & very over used, I notice it didn't mention no water in our dams, as that one eventually went the way of the titanic.
regards inter

Not a fear campaign, but it's probably an appropriate reaction.

These are climate facts inter. Climate facts that the fake skeptics try to ignore or downplay with diversions (like your water message). Nothing in those graphics or my comments in the post says anything about CO2 even though the impact of CO2 is accepted.

Guest essay by Bill Johnston
Elections for Australia’s National (Federal) parliament are looming and carbon tax is a battleground issue.
The incumbent Labour Party have proposed to transition its existing toxic carbon tax to an emissions trading scheme, linked to that in Europe, a year earlier than planned. Supposedly this would save their ‘working families’ about $300 AUD/year for one year. The Liberal opposition party has promised to scrap the tax and ETS altogether and go for “direct action”. The fringe Greens party are wailing from the political sidelines because they don’t like anything.
IF climate change is natural; and, IF the warming is more hot air than substance, neither plan is likely to achieve anything except increase the cost of living.
To help clarify things, this essay presents a straightforward analysis of Australia’s overall average temperature record, in sufficient detail that it could readily be repeated.Methods and results.
Average ACORN-SAT temperature anomaly data (1961-1990 climatology) were downloaded month-by month from Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology (Australia's official weather forecasts & weather radar - Bureau of Meteorology) “Climate Change Tracker” page.
To ensure data were not skewed by choice of the period used for anomaly calculations, they were sorted into a year by month array in Microsoft Excel and a lookup table of the 1961-1990 monthly climatological averages was used to convert anomalies into degrees Celsius.
To prevent December being recognized by Excel as the first month of the following year (which due to “time slippage” it does) time was calculated as a continuous variable of month-centered deciyears using the formula: Deciyear = [(digimonth-0.5)/12 + year]
In a separate table, Excel functions were used to calculate overall monthly average temperatures from the back-transformed data. Using those as lookup values, temperature data were seasonally adjusted using the standard approach of deducting overall monthly averages from respective monthly values. A new zero-centred anomaly dataset was thus calculated. It was those data that were analysed here.
Data were examined graphically in Excel (using Excel fitted trend lines); and statistically using the standalone package PAST (v. 2.17b) from the University of Oslo (PAST).
Homogeneity is an issue for time series whose data-stream may be a mixture of trend; abrupt changes due to external “shocks”, and cyclic phenomenon. Shocks or shifts may result in changes in the data’s properties causing spurious trend inferences if they are ignored.
Two Excel addins were used to investigate homogeneity. They were:
(i) Change Point Analyser (CPA) from www.variation.com (time-limited freeware) (nonparametric), which used bootstrapping to detect changepoints in the mean and standard deviation of an historical data stream. CPA flagged if data were not serially independent and sub-sampling and grouping options are available to handle the problem. Various user options affect the sensitivity of CPA analysis.
(ii) Sequential t-test Analysis of Regime Shifts) v. 3.2 (STARS) (freeware from:Bering Climate and Ecosystem - Regime shift detection) (parametric). Conducts sequential t-tests along a time series to detect changes in the mean level. It can also be used to test for changes in the variance. STARS presents various options for handling autocorrelation as well as settings which determine sensitivity.
To minimise detection of statistically non-significant shifts (false detections), and maximise detection of significant ones, for both procedures, a rigorous iterative approach involving combinations of test parameters was used.
Target confidence levels were: P > 95% (CPA) and P <0.05 (STARS), meaning less than a 5% chance of detected changes being spurious. (Both CPA and STARS provide actual Plevels for detected shifts, which allows a stringent interpretation of results.)In addition to basic statistical tests such as for normality and autocorrelation, PAST conducts Lomb periodogram spectral analysis on detrended data and it includes routines for fitting up to 8 optimised sinusoidal regressions (a form of “blind” spectral analysis).It’s linear regression module handles non-normal and potentially autocorreleted data using bootstrapped confidence intervals, with the overall significance of regression indicated byP(unc.), which is the probability that data are not correlated. PAST will also fit an optimised cubic smoothing spine to noisy data.PAST conveniently operates on a “cut-and-paste” basis with Excel, allowing them to be used in tandem.(More information, and references are available at the respective web-sites.)This study adopted a decomposition approach to the trend problem. Decomposition involves breaking the total signal (which is: trend + noise) into its components; which are deducted before trend is investigated. The approach is simple, objective, transparent and repeatable.To leave the trend intact, it is largely the “noise” part of the data (i.e. the detrended data) that are investigated. (Detrended data are the residuals from fitting a least-squares regression relationship to the data and deducting the fit; it is a transformation option in PAST.)Already, without affecting the overall naïve trend (0.0089oC/yr), or sacrificing data (which happens with annual averaging), deducting monthly averages from values for respective months removed the annual summer-winter temperature oscillation, which accounts for a considerable portion of the total noise (Figure 1).Figure 1. Average temperature (left) and monthly anomaly data (right) plotted at the same scale. For the anomaly data, the annual ‘cyclic’ signal has been removed compressing the apparent data range. The underlying trend remained unaffected (indicated as 0.0089oC/year; or 0.089 oC /decade).Visualisation of the anomaly data using LOWESS regression in PAST (smoothing parameter 0.3), and an expanded scatter-plot of the anomaly data in Excel (not shown here) indicated a shift may have occurred in the series in the 1950’s. This was investigated further by constructing a Cusum (or residual mass) plot in Excel. (The LOWESS tends to ‘smooth’ its way through data steps, which hides their abrupt nature.)Cusum values are calculated as the cumulative sum of zero-centred monthly anomaly values.The plot (Figure 2) suggested the overall dataset contained several discontinuities, with turning points (inflections) in 1957 and 1979. This indicated the data might not be homogeneous.(Like a scatter plot, which indicates the linear characteristics of data; a Cusum chart indicates the shape of the data relative to the long-term mean.)(Consecutive numbers, including completely random ones, show “runs” above and below the data average. Thus a Cusum chart is an indicator not a statistical test. The test, which comes later, is the probability that such runs represent a process that is not due to chance (CPA; P ~> 95%) or that steps in the time-series-mean are statistically significant (P < 0.05; STARS).)Figure 2. The Cusum tracks the behaviour of the data relative to its overall average. In this case, average temperatures tracked less than the long-term average until 1957, and tracked higher after about 1979. Thus, the data may consist of three distinct data segments each of which could display different characteristics.It was important to check that step-changes in the data were not confounded with long-period oscillations. This was investigated using PAST.Spectral analysis on the detrended data found statistically significant (P < 0.05) peaks at 0.02297 and 0.00987yr-1, corresponding to frequencies of 3.6 and 8.44 years (Figure 3). Optimally fitted sinusoids detected similar signals (periodicity of 3.7 and 8.5 years). Although the amplitudes were small (0.142 and 0.137Co respectively) relative to the range of the detrended data, their effects ought still be removed.Figure 3. PAST graphic of the Lomb periodogram of detrended data, indicating spectral peaks at 0.00987yr-1 (P <0.05) and 0.02297yr-1 (P < 0.01) corresponding to periods (cycles) of 8.44 and 3.6 years respectively. (The red lines represent the 95 and 99% confidence intervals.)(The frequencies correspond roughly to the 8.85 yr cycle of lunar perigee and a related quasi-cycle of 4.4 years, which have long been known to affect sea-levels (see Haig et. al. (2011) doi:10.1029/2010JC006645 for a general discussion.) However, there seems to be little written about the possible impact of short-term cycles on terrestrial temperature.)To remove the underlying cycles, sinusoids fitted to the detrended data were pasted back into Excel and deducted from the monthly anomaly data. Homogeneity of those residuals was investigated using CPA and STARS.CPA and STARS both detected highly significant step-changes in the de-cycled data around April 1957; January 1979 and April 2002. STARS detected an additional change in August 2010. (It needs to be noted that CPA is a less powerful test than STARS and it is less sensitive to detecting change-points near the end of a series. A major advantage of STARS (over most other step-detection techniques) is that it is effective for monitoring changes over a full record.)(Iteratively determined CPA test parameters were: target significance level, 95%; confidence level for inclusion, 99%; CI estimation at 99% (bootstraps 10,000, with replacement; Cusum estimates.) For STARS, parameters were: probability, 0.1, cutoff length 120 months (10 years); Huber parameter, 5 (no outlier adjustment); IPN4 to handle autocorrelation.)Figure 4 shows the data segments detected by CPA superimposed on its Cusum chart (CPA graphic).Figure 4. Cusum chart indicating changes detected by CPA.Results of STARS analysis is shown in Figure 5.The step-changes identified here need to be interpreted in the light of changes in the broader climate.STARS analysis of C. Folland’s (Hadley Centre) unfiltered Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) index (1871-2007) found significant shifts in 1907 (from a previous strongly positive phase) to a moderately positive phase that lasted until 1947. The index shifted to a negative phase in 1948; a strongly positive phase in 1975; then back to a negative phase in 1999. These were sudden and abrupt phase-changes that have been linked to the severity and intensity of ENSO cycling by a number of Authors.Remembering that averaging smoothes data considerably; and that the temperature data represent continental-scale averages it was not unexpected that the temperature response to IPO phase-changes lagged by several years. The consistency of the temperature response strongly implicated the IPO (or DPO) as the likely trigger for temperature step-changes detected here (1957, 1979, 2002 [the 2010 temperature shift was outside the IPO data range]).Clearly, a linear trend model is inappropriate for stepped data as trend analysis could be biased by the choice of start and end dates. Also, confounding steps and trends will certainly lead to spurious results and miss-attribution of cause and effect.Figure 5. STARS analysis of decycled anomaly data, with the highly significant step-changes superimposed. P levels were: April 1957 4.8E-05; January 1979 2.01E-05; April 2002 4.1E-05 and August 2010 0.0089. (E represents engineering notation.) It was extremely unlikely that the step changes were due to chance.For example, the overall trend in the data (January 1910 to June 2013) is 0.089oC/decade. The trend from 1950, which is a popular climate-change starting point, to June 2013, is 0.13 oC/decade. The trend from the start (1910) to the end of the 2010 “hot decade” is 0.1oC/decade, or conveniently, about 1 degree for the century. All very quotable statistics; but all quite misleading.Looking at the individual step-changes, the difference between the period average at the start of the record (-0.275oC) and the end (0.132oC) is 0.41oC; divided by the number of decades (10.64), the rate is 0.039 oC/decade. But that is not a real rate either; it is simply the difference divided by elapsed years.So is there a trend?Residuals from deducting the step-change means from the anomaly data were pasted into PAST and detrended. They were modelled using an optimised smoothing spline, which tracked much of the noise. After deducting the splined signal from the step-free residuals (in Excel) data were pasted back into PAST and analysed for trend.No significant trend was detected.To further underscore the trend problem, the dataset was segmented at each of the changepoints indicated in Figure 5, resulting in five trend clusters, four of which were valid (from January 1910 to March 1957; April 1957 to December 1978; January 1979 to March 2002 and April 2002 to July 2010. (The fifth cluster from August 2010 to January 2013 was not defined by an end-point so it too short to adequately test.)After reducing noise by deducting a cubic smoothing spline fit to each cluster’s detrended data, only one cluster (April 1957 to December 1978) showed a statistically significant (P(unc) <0.01) trend. For that case, the trend was negative (-0.16oC/decade).So were the step-changes real or an artefact?It has been established in Australia’s climate literature that that when the IPO (or PDO) is in its positive phase, dry El Niño conditions predominate over much of the continent; and that El Niño events are more frequent and severe. When in its negative phase, La Niña dominates which brings generally moist conditions especially to southern Australia.This is not to say that droughts don’t occur; or floods, during opposite phases; it is a general statement supported by published studies.The timing of IPO/DPO shifts is evidenced by other meteorological events. For instance, a time-plot of Australia’s annual rainfall shows extreme values in the early 1950’s; 1974; 2000, and 2010/11 (1974 being the most pronounced). The rapid temperature decline post the 2000-2010 “hot decade” evidences how rapidly climate changes in response to a major shift.The impact of shifts in the broader climate system on floods, cyclones, droughts and heatwaves is also corroborated by day-to-day reports in historic newspapers and other documents including Bureau of Meteorological Bulletins, special statements and Journal papers.Thus multiple lines of evidence can be drawn-on to support that around the time of IPO/PDO shifts, the climate is markedly perturbed. It then takes a year or 2 for things to settle down, often to a new level. Clearly step-changes are real and consequential in human terms.Regardless of their origin, events that impact on data are not trends. They create inhomogeneties in time series, which invalidate trend estimation using least-squares methods. The popular choice of 1950 as a climate change “starting point” is not a valid one because the data from 1950 to 1957 are from a pool of lower than average values that exert leverage on the trend-line. As indicated earlier, data prior to 1957 were non-trending.It is important that time-related data are checked for inhomogeneties and other non-trend signals and that the effect of these are removed. Otherwise the total signal is a confounded one.Conclusions.

Australia’s averaged temperature data were impacted on by climate shifts in the 1950’s, 1970’s 2002 and 2010. After deducting the impact of those natural events, no residual warming trend was evident that could be related to atmospheric CO2 levels.

Australia’s, ‘hot decade’ (2000-2010) was used to relentlessly market global warming by Australia’s Climate Commission; the Bureau of Meteorology; green groups and politicians in order to stir a sense of catastrophe and climate-fear. However, the fear was unfounded; the drought and associated high temperatures were a temporary aberration caused by El Niño cycles, not global warming.

The 2010 down-step exposed much of that decade’s climate-grooming as false and deceptive. Deceit continues under the guise of “climate change”. There is no evidence at this time that climate change and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere are related.

The outcome of Australia’s looming election will make no difference to the climate, or to the likelihood or impact of future climate changes. Ditching the carbon tax together with ‘direct action’ would save the Nation’s taxpayers many billions of AUD$ which would be better spent on Nation-building and improving access to services.

===================Dr. Bill Johnston is a retired natural resources scientist with an interest in climate change issues.

Marc.In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell

The Week That Was: 2014-01-25 (January 25, 2014) Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project

Quote of the Week: “The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions.”Leonardo da Vinci [H/t Climate Etc.] Number of the Week: 1 in 100,000 over 70 years################################################## #State of the Union: Last week TWTW incorrectly expressed that President Obama’s State of the Union Address would be at 9 pm on Tuesday, January 21. In fact it will be at 9 pm on Tuesday January 28. The later date was somewhat fortunate for Mr. Obama because January 21 was a cold day with blowing snow in Washington. Between 4 to 12 inches accumulated in various parts around the city. Much of the snow remains because, generally, temperatures have been below freezing.

Many speculate that Mr. Obama will announce dramatic executive actions to fight global warming/climate change. If so, such actions will further illustrate that he is an authoritarian executive who has little regard for legislative processes as called for in the Constitution.Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo of WeatherBell Analytics informed TWTW that on January 28 every state of the union will have freezing temperatures and parts or all of 27 states will be below zero (-18 ºC). The current National Weather Service forecast for Washington is a high of 18ºF (-8 ºC) and a low of 7ºF (-14 ºC). The low temperature will be some 21ºF (12 ºC) below the Washington normal low for mid-January of 28ºF (-2 ºC). Perhaps the nation would be better off if the President declares his climate action plan is working and no new measures are needed. For an overview of what the week will bring see link under Changing Weather.*************EU Retreat? As it appears that President Obama is preparing for war against global warming, it appears that the EU may be considering retreat. The European Commission proposed 2030 climate and energy goals, which indicated priorities may be changing. Competitive and secure energy came first, then low-carbon energy. The goals for renewable energy in 2030 were raised, but after 2020 specific goals will not be binding on individual countries. It is doubtful that the political leadership of many individual states will desire to continue with substantial renewable energy subsidies as consumer electricity prices continue to rise and government budgets are under pressure.The goals also include reducing CO2 emissions by 40% by 2030, which would require a significant effort from the current goal of reducing CO2 emissions by 20% by 2020, as compared with 1990 levels. How much carbon intensive industry are the EU member states willing to sacrifice or heavily subsidize? Germany, UK, and several other member states recognize that they are in danger of significant de-industrialization as industries are looking elsewhere to expand, given the high costs of electricity and natural gas in Europe.It will be interesting to see if and how these goals become actual measures. The Economist, which considers CO2 emissions a threat to the planet, is calling for bold action in the direction of cap-and-trade and carbon taxes. It even makes the assertion that electricity prices would fall if renewable subsidies are dropped. There should be interesting battles within the EU as member states face difficult choices, made far more difficult by past commitments to solar and wind power. See links under Questioning European Green and Cap-and-Trade and Carbon Taxes.*************Integrity of Datasets: Steven Goddard reports he discovered a spurious warming in the US data set provided by the US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) and used by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA-GISS). The finding is not new. It has been reported by Anthony Watts, Joseph D’Aleo and others. In general, version 2 of the data set, reduced historic temperatures making recent temperatures to appear warmer than the past. All this makes announcements of a certain year being the X hottest in the historic record highly questionable. Once a dataset is compromised, can its integrity be restored? See links under Measurement Issues.*************Maximum and Minimum or Average: The report by Steven Goddard prompted Roy Spencer to update his alternative dataset using the U.S. average Integrated Surface Hourly temperature data (48 states) which he adjusts for changes in population density of the area where the report station is located. The adjustment is to compensate for the Urban Heat Island effect (UHI).Spencer reports that in 2012 he too discovered a spurious warming in the USHCN dataset around 1998. By averaging four readings of temperatures taken at the same time (00, 06, 12, AND 18 UTC) he calculates a warming trend since 1973 – when there was sufficient hourly coverage of the US. After adjusting for population growth, Spencer shows a warming trend significantly less than that of the USHCN. Further, the spurious warming remains even with no population adjustment. Spencer concludes: Clearly, adjustments to surface temperature data are at least as large as the global warming signal being sought. Until a transparent analysis of the USHCN methodology is carried out, and alternative methods and temperature datasets are tested, I can’t bring myself to believe any U.S. government pronouncements regarding record warm temperatures. See link under Challenging the Orthodoxy.*************PDO: In a post on WUWT, Don Easterbrook describes how he developed the association between changes in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), glacial fluctuations on Mt. Baker in Washington State, and global temperature data. Easterbrook came across a paper by Mantua, et al., on the influence the PDO on salmon populations in the Northeast Pacific. There was an almost exact correspondence between Easterbrook’s findings of glacial fluctuations on Mt Baker.Using this association, in 1999, Easterbrook predicted a cooling for the next 25 to 30 years, immediately after the hot El Niño year of 1998. It is likely that few in the audience believed him. Later, Joe D’Aleo added the importance of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Easterbrook extended the research to GISP2 ice cores from Greenland and found a similar match. Of course, this research is poorly received by the climate establishment and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).As Easterbrook states, it is important to realize that the PDO is an index, not a measured value of heat. It is based on about a dozen or so parameters that are related to cyclical variations in sea surface temperatures in the NE Pacific. It has two modes, warm and cool, and flips back and forth between them every 25 to 30 years. The question remains if the climate will cool for 20 to 25 years as Easterbrook predicts.Easterbrook states that it is not clear what drives these oceanic/climatic cycles. The “correlations with various solar parameters appear to be quite good, but the causal mechanism remains unclear.” See link under Challenging the Orthodoxy.*************Communicate with the Public: The climate establishment continues to believe that the growing distrust the public has in global warming/climate change pronouncements is purely a breakdown in communication and not related to the failure of nature to obey human climate models. In discussing the “missing heat,” Judith Curry neatly sums up the issue. Well, if the scientists don’t understand the cause of the pause, and the public is aware of the pause, then exactly what are we to conclude about the public understanding of climate change? Maybe that the public is not sufficiently ‘sophisticated’ to believe climate model projections that are running much warmer than observations for the past decade? See link under Seeking a Common Ground.*************The Fingerprint: Benjamin Santer complains that independent bloggers profoundly affected him. It is very difficult to have sympathy for this man who, in a hearing before Congress, bragged he changed wording in the final Summary for Policymakers, and Chapter 8, (on Attribution) of the IPCC Second Assessment Report (AR2 – 1995-96) to asserting a discernible human influence on global warming, after it had undergone peer review. He also bragged he discovered the distinct human fingerprint (a hot spot centered over the tropics at about 33,000 feet) which no one can find. Santer accomplished the latter task by truncating atmospheric temperature data, removing data at the beginning and the end of the dataset. These data contradict Santer’s findings. See link under Defending the Orthodoxy and an article by S. Fred SingerArticles: IPCC 's Bogus Evidence for Global Warming*************Social Cost of Carbon: Comments on the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) are due on Monday to the Office of Management and Budget. The concept is a construct of an out-of-control bureaucracy. There are a number of models to calculate SCC, using different discount rate. The higher the rate, the lower the SCC.The science behind EPAs finding that carbon dioxide emissions endanger human health and welfare and its three lines of evidence is imploding. The climate models simply do not work and greatly overestimate the recent warming [no surface warming for 16 years]. There is no reason to believe the climate models are capable of predicting the future climate.Perhaps with this in mind, Joseph D’Aleo has an amusing post on one of the social costs of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. Research funded by the National Institute Drug Abuse has found that Cannabis sativa grows best in atmospheres with high concentrations of carbon dioxide, up to the highest level tested, 750 parts per million. See link under Below the Bottom Line.*************Additions and Corrections: The system used to send out TWTW does not allow certain formatting methods as customarily used. For quotes, italics are used, but long quotes cannot be indented. In last week’s TWTW Judith Curry was quoted extensively regarding Mr. Mann’s accusation that her testimony before the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee was unscientific. Some readers were confused about who was being quoted. We shall make every effort to be clear in the future.*************Number of the Week: 1 in 100,000 over 70 years. Those visiting California for the first time may think it is the most dangerous place on earth for contracting cancer. Retail establishments selling food, groceries, hardware, building products, gasoline etc. are plastered with signs stating: “WARNING: This Area Contains A Chemical Known To The State of California To Cause Cancer.” The standard used to establish this warning is an example of collective chemical phobia: “at least a 1 in 100,000 chance for any person exposed to the product over a period of 70 years contracting cancer.” See Article # 2.################################################## #ARTICLES:

Marc.In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell

Apple chief executive Tim Cook has bluntly told climate change sceptic investors to ditch their stocks if they do not support his pledge to slash greenhouse gas emissions, in the latest signal that the company will continue to invest in sustainable energy.
According to witnesses at Apple’s annual meeting on Friday, Cook became visibly angry when questioned by a radical right-wing think tank about the profitability of investing in renewable energy.
Under Cook’s leadership Apple has stepped up its commitment to curbing its environmental impact, pledging to supply 100% of its power from renewable sources and crack down on the use of minerals mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) that can fund war and human rights abuses.
At the meeting last week, shareholders voted down a resolution by the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) - an avid campaigner against action to tackle climate change - that would force Apple to disclose more information about the costs of its investment in tackling climate change.
However, Justin Danhof of the NCPPR pursued the line by asking Cook if Apple’s environmental investments increased or decreased the company’s bottom line. He also asked Cook to commit Apple to only investing in measures that were profitable.
Cook became visibly angry at Danhof’s questions and categorically rejected the NCPPR’s climate scepticism, according to the Mac Observer’s Bryan Chaffin, who attended the event. He told shareholders that securing a return on investment was not the only reason for investing in environmental measures.
“When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don’t consider the bloody ROI,” Cook said, adding that the same sentiment applied to environmental and health and safety issues.
He told Danhof that if he did not believe in climate change, he should sell his Apple shares. “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock,” he said.
Cook’s comments and visible passion over the issue are one of the strongest signals yet of his commitment to reducing Apple’s environmental footprint. He told shareholders that he wanted to “leave the world better than we found it”.
The NCPPR has reacted angrily to Cook’s put-down, accusing him of denying shareholders the right to know how their money is being invested.
In a statement released after the meeting, Danhof accused Apple of failing to consider the long-term impacts of its environmental investments, arguing that Apple did not have the best interests of its shareholders at heart.
“Too often investors look at short-term returns and are unaware of corporate policy decisions that may affect long-term financial prospects,” he said. “After today’s meeting, investors can be certain that Apple is wasting untold amounts of shareholder money to combat so-called climate change. The only remaining question is: how much?
“The company’s CEO fervently wants investors who care more about return on investments than reducing CO2 emissions to no longer invest in Apple. Maybe they should take him up on that advice.”
However, the NCPPR did not say if it was now planning to sell its Apple shares.

These are climate facts inter. Climate facts that the fake skeptics try to ignore or downplay with diversions (like your water message). Nothing in those graphics or my comments in the post says anything about CO2 even though the impact of CO2 is accepted.

its propaganda aimed at the common garden variety dweebs, political, religious or climate orientated, its all the same, but those that swallow it will take it to the grave with them,
get real! everything you do is implied to be linked to CO2, it must really cheese one off to not have everyone running around like chooks with their heads cut off, worrying about a warming climate (which inevitably will be beneficial for mankind, unlike global cooling which would be not beneficial).
regards inter

Sorry but this says absolutely nothing. Hence why I haven't posted all the extreme cold events in other parts of the world.

So El Nino is the result of Co2? Not a natural event?

Really!

It says the notion that the Earth is on the verge of entering a cooling phase is bunkum. Rather we are likely to see the next step up on the atmospheric temperature record once ENSO does its normal thing.

Hence why I haven't posted all the extreme cold events in other parts of the world.

Like the results of the changes in the jetstream. Sure, you could post that, but I don't think it would help your cause.

So El Nino is the result of Co2? Not a natural event?

Really!

I think I said El Nino is coming, not that it is a result of CO2. You don't seem to have read the very few words I put in that post and are jumping to conclusions (you're not the only one) My point is that we are likely to get the next highest on record global average temperature with an El Nino. Have a look at John2b's post, it displays the possibility quite eloquently.

I think that is going to be interesting to follow, the next El Nino event possibly the next two or three are going to give a better indication of the high 1998 result, was it an abnormal high for an El Nino phase or is it the new normal. If temperatures show a new spike there are a couple of posters here who will need to find a new line.

I think that is going to be interesting to follow, the next El Nino event possibly the next two or three are going to give a better indication of the high 1998 result, was it an abnormal high for an El Nino phase or is it the new normal. If temperatures show a new spike there are a couple of posters here who will need to find a new line.

So you disregard the facts as they are at the present, hoping for a change in events which haven't happened yet to try & verify your failed theory of the present, brilliant!!!! Have you got a name for this nonsense theory.
regards inter

Reality is a place where you do not ignore the energy budget of the planet. Nor do you ignore the results of that budget like the heat directed into the oceans, the mass balance of the planet's ice, the migration of species towards the poles or up mountains following their acceptable temperature range, etc etc.

Picking a single planetary measure that suits your idealism at the current time is just choosing to ignore reality.

whats that got to do with paying a tax on CO2??? more obvious propaganda

What this shows is that major corporations are now accepting and acting on the science and calling out deniers for what they are. Tim Cook told his denier shareholders to get out of his stock. It takes guts and conviction to draw a line like that. Good on him. Richard Branson told them to get out of the way.

If ever there has been a clear indication that deniers, fake skeptics and industry shills are losing the battle to misinform us, this has to be top of the list. Rod is "getting a bit sick of this evidence crap", but the evidence continues to mount and corporations with long term planning are not ignoring it.

What this shows is that major corporations are now accepting and acting on the science and calling out deniers for what they are. Tim Cook told his denier shareholders to get out of his stock. It takes guts and conviction to draw a line like that. Good on him. Richard Branson told them to get out of the way.

If ever there has been a clear indication that deniers, fake skeptics and industry shills are losing the battle to misinform us, this has to be top of the list. Rod is "getting a bit sick of this evidence crap", but the evidence continues to mount and corporations with long term planning are not ignoring it.

it hilarious how your building propaganda hype as the IPCC is dropping the climate change projections, another decade or so & those projections of temperature rises will be as flat as your CO2 theory. those very companies were the exact ones that claimed the Australian govt needed their heads read for introducing a CO2 tax before the rest of the major global economies, they can say what they want but they have just moved shop overseas where there is no tax.
regards inter

it hilarious how your building propaganda hype as the IPCC is dropping the climate change projections, another decade or so & those projections of temperature rises will be as flat as your CO2 theory. those very companies were the exact ones that claimed the Australian govt needed their heads read for introducing a CO2 tax before the rest of the major global economies, they can say what they want but they have just moved shop overseas where there is no tax.
regards inter

A point of interdiction - the IPCC hasn't / didn't drop the climate change projections in AR5.

The future warming by 2100 – with comparable emission scenarios – is about the same as in the previous report. For the highest scenario, the best-estimate warming by 2100 is still 4 °C (see the following chart).Figure 2 The future temperature development in the highest emissions scenario (red) and in a scenario with successful climate mitigation (blue) – the “4-degree world” and the “2-degree world.”What is new is that IPCC has also studied climate mitigation scenarios. The blue RCP2.6 is such a scenario with strong emissions reduction. With this scenario global warming can be stopped below 2 ° C.

You might want to think again about your claim that Apple and Virgin Airlines "companies were the exact ones that claimed the Australian govt needed their heads read for introducing a CO2 tax before the rest of the major global economies" because to the casual observer you just seem to make this stuff up LOL.

Virgin CEO Richard Branson said that those who are skeptical of man-made global warming should “get out of our way,” joining the ranks of CEOs lashing out against those opposed to business investments in “sustainability.”

"Qantas believes that the mainstream science of climate change is correct - human activities are having an impact on our climate, and this potentially poses a risk to our environment, the community and the economy."

BTW the reason Qantas isn't worse off due to the Australian carbon "tax" is that when it is removed, rather Qantas will be financially penalised when flying into Europe for operating from a country that does not have a carbon price scheme:

it hilarious how your building propaganda hype as the IPCC is dropping the climate change projections, another decade or so & those projections of temperature rises will be as flat as your CO2 theory. those very companies were the exact ones that claimed the Australian govt needed their heads read for introducing a CO2 tax before the rest of the major global economies, they can say what they want but they have just moved shop overseas where there is no tax.
regards inter

Unlike those who seek to deny the science, the IPCC does not ignore all inputs and effects of the global energy budget. Projections by necessity take into account variations in the climate system. I suggest you read the WG1 report as you don't seem to be quoting them accurately.

Apple has long played games with taxation and profits when trading in overseas markets, that is not anything new. If you don't like that, get out of their stock. lol. I think you'll find that Tim Cook was speaking at a US shareholders meeting, not in or about Australia.

Virgin Group, for whom Richard Branson speaks only owns 10% of the Virgin Australia airline. What he said was not on behalf of Virgin Australia.

Both were not talking about the Australian situation, they were responding to climate change deniers about their company policies which take the science into account rather than ignore or deny it.

These are self-serving, profit motivated companies. If they are paying attention to climate science and making long term and costly plans to mitigate the effects for their companies then that is another nail in the coffin of climate change denial.

A point of interdiction - the IPCC hasn't / didn't drop the climate change projections in AR5.

The future warming by 2100 – with comparable emission scenarios – is about the same as in the previous report. For the highest scenario, the best-estimate warming by 2100 is still 4 °C (see the following chart).Figure 2 The future temperature development in the highest emissions scenario (red) and in a scenario with successful climate mitigation (blue) – the “4-degree world” and the “2-degree world.”What is new is that IPCC has also studied climate mitigation scenarios. The blue RCP2.6 is such a scenario with strong emissions reduction. With this scenario global warming can be stopped below 2 ° C.

You might want to think again about your claim that Apple and Virgin Airlines "companies were the exact ones that claimed the Australian govt needed their heads read for introducing a CO2 tax before the rest of the major global economies" because to the casual observer you just seem to make this stuff up LOL.

Virgin CEO Richard Branson said that those who are skeptical of man-made global warming should “get out of our way,” joining the ranks of CEOs lashing out against those opposed to business investments in “sustainability.”

"Qantas believes that the mainstream science of climate change is correct - human activities are having an impact on our climate, and this potentially poses a risk to our environment, the community and the economy."

BTW the reason Qantas isn't worse off due to the Australian carbon "tax" is that when it is removed, rather Qantas will be financially penalised when flying into Europe for operating from a country that does not have a carbon price scheme:

every new IPCC assessment projections has been lower than the previous one.
aah qantas, I shining example of moving shop overseas, brilliant example you have shown.
you must think we have memories similar to gold fish or something.
regards inter

but it means jack, because it's not replicated in the sthrn hemisphere, if it was then that would seal the deal, alas it doesn't so it shows that it's a regional occurrence & not global.
regards inter

I'm not so sure about that the age today has an article on the shifting of winds in the Antarctic pushing ice out to sea and forming more ice behind in an "ice factory" the wind shifts are linked to warming. It will not change the views of entrenched sceptics but it is an interesting read for those with more open minds.

Even if we give you Surface Air Temps (which we shouldn't for another 9+ years), it doesn't cancel out the other evidence. We're looking at net planetary warming in line with the physics and the science. You need some major cooling evidence to balance out these items and there just isn't anything significant to show, but if you have something do post it up.

I'm not so sure about that the age today has an article on the shifting of winds in the Antarctic pushing ice out to sea and forming more ice behind in an "ice factory" the wind shifts are linked to warming. It will not change the views of entrenched sceptics but it is an interesting read for those with more open minds.

ahh that's right it cools down & warms the climate, brilliant why didn't I think of that.
regards inter